Shanahan v. Bambino, 271 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Shanahan v. Bambino, 271 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the supreme court's broad discretion at p. 519 ⚠ not in text
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sereda v. A.J. Richard & Sons, Inc. (nyappdiv, 2023-09-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sereda v. A.J. Richard & Sons, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Although "[d]iscovery statutes are to be [*2]construed liberally so that there should be disclosure of any material that is even 'arguably relevant' ( Gentile v Ogden , 208 AD3d 855, 856 , quoting Shanahan v Bambino , 271 AD2d 519, 519 [alteration omitted]), "unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the trial court's broad discretion" ( Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp. , 300 AD2d 460, 461 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gentile v Ogden , 208 AD3d at 856 ; Jordan v City of New York , 137 AD3d 1084 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Levine v. City Medical Associates, P.C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Although the discovery statutes are to be construed “liberally” so that there should be disclosure of any material that is even arguably relevant (see Shanahan v Bambino, 271 AD2d 519, 519 [2000]), “unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the Supreme Court’s broad discretion” (Mironer v City of New York, 79 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2010]; see Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp., 300 AD2d 460, 461 [2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Levine v. City Medical Associates, P.C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Although the discovery statutes are to be construed “liberally” so that there should be disclosure of any material that is even arguably relevant (see Shanahan v Bambino, 271 AD2d 519, 519 [2000]), “unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the Supreme Court’s broad discretion” (Mironer v City of New York, 79 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2010]; see Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp., 300 AD2d 460, 461 [2002]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marie Shanahan
v.
Nicholas Bambino
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 10, 2000.
271 A.D.2d 519
2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4061
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated May 17, 1999, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Nicholas Bambino and Irving Bough for protective orders, inter alia, prohibiting the plaintiffs from acquiring pathology tissue from the defendant Cornwall Hospital for testing.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motions are denied, and the defendant Cornwall Hospital is directed to provide the plaintiffs with the pathology tissue for testing provided that the resulting slide is made available for examination by the respondents.

The plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that the respondents committed medical malpractice by misdiagnosing the condition of the plaintiff Marie Shanahan as Crohn’s disease instead of amoebic colitis. In furtherance of that claim, the injured plaintiff contacted the defendant Cornwall Hospital to determine if she could acquire a “recut” of the remaining biopsied specimen, which was preserved, in order to conduct a “stain” test. The plaintiffs maintained that this particular stain test should have been conducted originally by the respondents for a proper diagnosis to be made. The respondents sought a protective order from the court precluding the recutting of the original specimen arguing, inter alia, that to do so would force them to improperly create evidence not in existence at the time of the alleged malpractice.

Given the liberal interpretation of the rules of disclosure, an item of arguable relevance should be disclosed (see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403; Schioppa v Pallotta, 242 AD2d 698). In this case, the plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated that the stain test to be conducted on the recut of the remaining original specimen is relevant to the allegation of medical malpractice. Further, the plaintiffs presented the affidavit of an expert witness to establish that it is a medically appropriate procedure to recut the remaining original specimen[*520] for testing purposes, that the slide made from this recut could be preserved for the respondents to view, and that this process would not affect the integrity of the original slide which the respondents had viewed when formulating their diagnosis of the injured plaintiffs condition. Therefore, the respondents’ respective motions for protective orders are denied and Cornwall Hospital is directed to provide the plaintiffs with the pathology tissue for testing provided that the resulting slide is made available for examination by the respondents (see, Lucarello v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 184 AD2d 623; see generally, Palestrant v Garcia, 244 AD2d 199). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.